The health of an economy is not based on consumer spending, it’s based on wealth creation. There’s nothing Govt or the central bank can or should do but to let capitalism run its course.

All else is folly. From a party that has been a folly for 11 years.

]]>By: Mikehttp://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2008/11/25/to-spend-or-not-to-spend/comment-page-1/#comment-891
Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:42:33 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=502#comment-891That land everyone (so called) owns is leased to you by your government(s) called taxation…And an anchor that hinders your career migration in the new world stay nimble work force…
By the way count up all the costs associated with homeownership(insurance,taxes,maintenanc e,utility costs etc) over time and see what your true equity results are…

Those who have enough reserves of cash NEED to go out NOW and spend something. To save jobs, etc., et al.

Indeed it is their duty to do so – we all need them to act now.

Of course people who have little or nothing in reserve cannot and should not spend anything they do not have – that’s logic for you.

The problem we have is an intractably pugilist, duplicitous Tory party that lacks acumen and is now deliberately making things worse in order to score political points. That is unforgivable and morally reprehensible. Shame on Cameron!

Cameron has gone way down in my estimations (I was once thinking of voting for him) as his slightly rabid rants and the insidious talking down of the pound and the economy do nothing but the worst for us all.

The Tories must STOP these negative and aggressive attacks and try to do some good.

I really do think that we have come to a very damaging situation where the opposition seeks advantage if the economy does not respond to Brown’s measure – indeed, Cameron does not want the economy to rally.

If it does he will NOT win the next election – right?

Cynical is not the word for this kind of skulduggery!

]]>By: Jasonhttp://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2008/11/25/to-spend-or-not-to-spend/comment-page-1/#comment-882
Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:29:03 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=502#comment-882Look at it from Badger’s point of view and the question “To spend or not to spend?” doesn’t arise.

If Labour win the next election he will have successfully bought the votes they need. If Labour lose the next election he will leave scorched earth for the Conservatives and can sit back and laugh at their awful opinion poll ratings as they administer the nasty medicine necessary to get the country back on track.

A win-win for Badger. And a familiar story from the past.

]]>By: Matthewhttp://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2008/11/25/to-spend-or-not-to-spend/comment-page-1/#comment-880
Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:47:35 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=502#comment-880For the first time, someone telling it like it is! Well done Nick Parsons. When cars are being sold on a 2 for 1 basis (and we’re told how pleased they are about it) does the government really think that we’re going to go rushing out to buy plasma screens for £975 instead of £1000 (screens which are probably made in Taiwan anyway)? It’s just plain daft. There might have been something in Labour’s old jibe “boom and bust”, but I think that situation was far better than “recession and depression and bust” which is what we’re now facing for the next five years or so.
]]>By: Petehttp://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2008/11/25/to-spend-or-not-to-spend/comment-page-1/#comment-878
Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:54:42 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=502#comment-878Alistair Darling’s plans to spend his way out of recession has so many flaws it’s become a tower of incompetence on the brink of collapsing
]]>By: Larry Darmaninhttp://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2008/11/25/to-spend-or-not-to-spend/comment-page-1/#comment-872
Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:59:18 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=502#comment-872House price are having a correction, having gone to high, to quickly ..but they don’t make land any more.
A house that cost £3,500 in 1970, around £160,000 today.

We will never know the true value in saved jobs, and everything that goes with that.

The action taken in the UK is part of world wide action taken because greedy people sold to much credit to people who could not afford it, and others who are maxed out on easy borrowing. Keeping people in work has great value.

The cost of the VAT saving might have better been used to keep people off of benifit.